From: James Yarbrough Subject: Re: [PATCH kNFSd 001 of 4] fix setattr-on-symlink error return Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:41:40 -0700 Message-ID: <434FFBE4.2C502E98@sgi.com> References: <20051014122041.11376.patches@notabene> <1051014022307.11542@cse.unsw.edu.au> <434FA4C4.6010806@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: NeilBrown , Andrew Morton , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1EQUV5-0001SJ-C9 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:41:51 -0700 Received: from omx3-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.20] helo=omx3.sgi.com) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1EQUV4-0007EF-6J for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:41:51 -0700 To: Peter Staubach Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: As I recall, the SpecFS tests exercise the NFS protocols directly, rather than through the filesystem interface provided by the client OS. Peter Staubach wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, how does the testsuite even generate a chmod(2) > request on a symbolic link? The chmod(2) system call semantics should > not allow this. -- jmy@sgi.com 650 933 3124 Let's get ta jigglin'! ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs